Graphical User Interfaces are registrable as designs provided they satisfy the statutory criteria of an article.

Several appellants (NEC Corporation, ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH, Abiomed Inc, and TVS Motor Company) challenged individual orders passed by the Controller/Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their applications for registration of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) as designs.

The Controller’s primary grounds for rejection were that a GUI is not an "article" under Section 2(a), is not applied by an "industrial process" under Section 2(d), lacks "permanence" as it is only visible when a device is powered on, and is already protected as "artistic work" under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The appellants contended that the 2021 amendment to the Design Rules, which adopted the Locarno Classification (Class 14-04) including GUIs and icons, evidenced a legislative intent to protect such digital designs.

The Court applied Section 2(a) of the Designs Act, 2000, defining "article" as any article of manufacture or substance.

It applied Section 2(d), which defines "design" as features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process which appeal to the eye.

It relied on the principle of "Updating Construction" to interpret statutes in light of technological advancements.

The Court referenced *Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc.* [137 S. Ct. 429] regarding the broad definition of "article of manufacture."

It referenced *Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs. Inox India Ltd* [2025 SCC Online SC 780] to resolve the overlap between copyright and design law, affirming that industrial application of an artistic work transforms it into a "design".

It further applied Rule 10(1) of the Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021, which incorporates the Locarno Classification including "Screen Displays and Icons" (Class 14-04).

The Court reasoned that the term "article" in Section 2(a) must be interpreted broadly and liberally to include digital interfaces as they are products of manufacture, even if they lack a continuous physical embodiment.

It rejected the Controller’s narrow interpretation of "industrial process," holding that the word "any" in Section 2(d) indicates that manual, mechanical, and chemical processes are merely illustrative, not exhaustive; thus, electronic rendering of a GUI qualifies as an industrial process.

On the issue of visibility, the Court held that Section 2(d) does not require "permanence"; a design is registrable if it is visible during the article’s "intended or normal use" (e.g., when the device is ON), citing the "test of noticeability" from the Manual of Designs Practice and Procedure.

The Court clarified that while a GUI is produced by a computer program, the visual interface is distinct from the underlying code and can be judged "solely by the eye," satisfying the aesthetic requirement.

Finally, the Court noted that the 2021 amendment to the Rules expressly included GUIs under the Locarno Classification, rendering the Controller's "per se" rejection legally untenable.

The Court set aside all the impugned rejection orders, concluding that they were based on a "misconceived notion" and a "hyper-technical" interpretation of the law.

The matters were remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration after providing the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

Each appeal (IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025, and IPDAID/3/2025) was allowed.